[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S261-S264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING OBSTRUCTIONISM
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, ordinarily I do not come to the Senate
floor and involve myself in a lot of the issues that are going on at
the leadership level, but I have to say I really am disappointed the
leaders of the Democratic Party are continuing to obstruct the
Republicans' effort to organize and to move forward with this Nation's
agenda.
In the last session, we could not even pass a budget. We have
appropriations bills that are waiting to be acted on as we move into
this new year. My hope is we could put aside our partisan differences
and move quickly forward with these pressing issues, deal with the
people's business. After we finish the unfinished business of the last
Congress, and after the State of the Union address, then we could go
ahead and begin to move forward with the business of this new year.
Historically in the Senate, the majority party has moved ahead very
quickly on the organizing resolution. It has been a standard process
where two-thirds of the funding goes to the majority party and a third
to the minority party.
I was interested in the reference by my colleague from Utah who
mentioned there was an e-mail floating around, which he quoted, that
this was actually a planned effort by the Democratic party to obstruct
the agenda. I have been informed there have been previous e-mails that
if the Democrat party had been in control in the Senate, they were
planning to push the two-thirds/one-third breakout on funding because
that has been the tradition of the Senate year after year; that is what
has happened, the majority party has had the two-thirds and the
minority party has been one-third.
Now we find the majority party has tried to use last year's abnormal
type of session--there was nothing normal about last year's session we
can use as a standard for moving forward from this point on, but the
fact is historically this has been a rather standard process. I hope we
can put aside this type of partisan bickering that does not have
anything to do with the people's business and move forward with what
historically we have done in the Senate.
Last year, Congress started with Republican control, then went back
to the Democrat Party because a Republican changed parties--went from a
Republican to an Independent. And then after this election,
technically, we could have been back in the majority again--after the
vote in Missouri. It was decided we would hold that aside and just move
forward with this year's agenda.
As we enter the second week of a new year, the second week of the
108th Congress, the business of the Senate is once again seeing
obstructionist politics blocking the Nation's business and our work
from moving forward, getting something accomplished. I don't see any
legitimate reason for this delay.
The Senate, over its many years, has abided by the clear precedent I
referred to earlier, with an organizing resolution quickly agreed upon,
and then we move forward with our routine business each year. Now we
have the Democrats wanting to change the world since they did not get
their way in November.
I had one of the more contested races in the Nation, in Colorado. It
is clear to me the people of Colorado are disappointed that we did not
pass a budget last year; that we did not get our work done in the last
Congress.
I don't think anyone wins with obstructionist politics. The big
losers are the citizens of this country. We are not able to address
their problems and move forward with real solutions. The people of the
United States made clear whom they chose to lead the Senate. It was the
same argument all over the country as in my race. Yet the minority
party refuses to step aside and let the duly elected party move
forward. We have a clear majority in this Congress to deal with the
business of the people and the business of the country. They refuse to
relinquish the power the people of the United States said they no
longer wished them to hold.
We face challenging times in our Nation. Grave threats against our
national security continue to damage economic confidence. Spending
bills that should have been approved last year are still pending. That
is right, 11 spending bills that provide funding for parks and research
failed, under the leadership of the Democrats, to proceed. And they are
not passing now because of the Democrats' persistence in obstructionist
politics. Last year, for the first time in decades, we did not even
pass a budget. Yet the Democrats still want to control.
I stand by our newly elected Majority Leader Frist and the people of
the United States. Let our work proceed. Let the will of the people
stand victorious and let the continuing resolution move forward
according to the clear precedent that we have in the Senate.
Newspapers across the Nation continue to report that the
obstructionist politics of the Democrats have delayed the confirmation
hearing of Tom Ridge, the President's choice to run the new Department
of Homeland Security. My question is, Do my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle truly believe the people of the United States would
rather see obstruction than move forward with the Department of
Homeland Security, with the effort to try to restore economic growth in
this country, to finish the unfinished business we had left over from
the last Congress because of obstruction politics?
The New York Times reported that until Senators adopt a so-called
organizing resolution, committee chairmanships will rest with the
Democrats despite the November elections that gave Republicans a 1-vote
majority. The impasse creates delays in the Senate business, not only
of Mr. Ridge's confirmation but also the confirmation of John Snow as
Treasury Secretary, as well as consideration of the appropriations
bills left over from last year.
[[Page S262]]
In addition, the 11 freshman Senators cannot receive their committee
assignments until the dispute is settled. Obstructionist politics of
the 107th Congress continue: No committee assignments, no chairmen;
newly elected Members of the Senate remain without the right to
participate in discussions because of heavy obstructionism.
In my view, we must end the stalemate and get back to work. I come to
the floor to reemphasize how important it is that we move forward and
get the Senate's business accomplished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
Mr. DOMENICI. Are we allowed 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
a situation that is evolving with reference to who is going to run the
Senate and who are going to be chairmen of committees and how are we
going to pay our staffs. I don't think the American people understand
this debate, so we ought to explain it quite a few times.
The election occurred. There has been a lot of talk in the country
about what happened. The conclusion was: Republicans won the Senate.
Now I will go back in time to the day that the distinguished Senator
from Vermont formally decided to leave this side of the aisle and
become independent and was ready to vote with that side of the aisle,
giving them a 1-vote majority. Before that day was up, the gavels were
handed to the Democrats to run the committees. So as I had been
chairman of the Budget Committee, I was no more. And Kent Conrad, who
had not been chairman, was chairman. So if any meetings were called or
hearings held, the agenda was prepared by him, not me.
Now we win an election, we come into session, we convene the Senate,
and guess what: Democrats maintain they are still entitled to run the
committees. I believe this borders on nonsense, but to the Democrats it
must mean something. Perhaps they think they win elections by delaying
what we do, by not letting us do work. Last time, they did that, we got
nothing done, and they lost. Maybe we should do nothing and stay in
this stalemate. Maybe we will win and they will lose again. But we
don't think that way. We think we ought to get on with the business
that is not yet done from last year.
Remember, we were not running things last year. I am not casting
aspersions, but they ran the Senate and we got nothing done. As a
matter of fact, we had 11 appropriations bills that we will be debating
perhaps for weeks that were last year's appropriations bills. They are
not finished. The year started out when that gavel was switched from
Domenici to Conrad and he became chairman. The Democrats never produced
a budget resolution last year either.
Again, some people do not want Senators from this side of the aisle
to lay blame on anyone, but a budget resolution was not passed and it
is supposed to be. The answer that was given was: We do not have the
votes; or: It is too hard. I passed a lot of them. We did not have the
votes, and they were too hard, and yet I got them done because that was
my job.
I am not saying every Senator who is chairman of the Budget Committee
should produce a budget. I am saying it should have been done last
year. And then we probably would have completed our appropriations
bills. We probably would have gotten the appropriations bills done. Now
we do not have them, 11 of them, and the other side of the aisle is
waiting for something to happen other than the election, which we won,
to give us the gavel so we can start to work at the Senate. Frankly, I
know people are probably saying: You can't be telling us the truth.
This can't be the case.
It is the case. It is the case. I am chairman of the Energy Committee
now. I have been told if I want to call a meeting, I am not chairman.
But I am chairman. Certainly the Democrat is not chairman. They say
they are, I guess, because we have not passed a resolution saying how
we are going to pay the committees. Frankly, that is another issue, how
much do we allot to the Democrats and how much to the Republicans to
run these committees. Frankly, I didn't think, having a brand new
majority leader, the first thing that would be given to him to solve is
this issue. I thought we would see him down here helping us get the
appropriations bills finished and get on with what we think we were
asked to do by the American people in the last election.
I think they were unhappy, at least enough to swing the election,
because the other side of the aisle delayed incessantly the passage of
the homeland security bill--incessantly. In fact, I should have asked
how many days that bill was delayed on the floor and in committee
because certain Senators on that side of the aisle did not like it the
way it was. That is their prerogative. They wanted to delay it. That is
their prerogative. They succeeded in delaying it. But we succeeded,
with the help of a Democrat Senator who suggested to his own people: Is
there a higher calling than the security of our country, even if it is
a special interest bill? Ask the Senator from that side of the aisle.
That spread like wildfire. That is why a couple of Senators on that
side of the aisle lost: Delay, delay, special interests on the homeland
bill. We barely got it finished. But we didn't get appropriations
finished.
Do you know what that means? If the American people understood what
that means, more telegrams and whatever they send to us would be here
on the laps of the Senators than you could ever imagine. It means
literally we have not funded education, roads, all of the bills on HUD,
on defense, on nuclear bombs, nuclear programs--defense we have done;
all the others we have not. We have not passed the annual
appropriations bills. They are operating at last year's funding levels.
What they got was for 1 year. We said we didn't get our work done so
just operate the same way you did last year. That is why some money is
not being spent on education, because it has not been appropriated.
They have not been allocated the new moneys. Up and down the
appropriations bills, that is the mess we are in. And we sit here and
argue about how many dollars are we going to give to the staff on the
Democrat side of the Energy Committee and how much to the staff of the
Republicans on the Energy Committee? I cite that because I happen to
chair that committee.
All I know, fellow Senators, is that in all of modern history,
whichever party was ahead--by one vote or 10 votes or 12 votes or two
votes--that is, however many more Senators elected on their side, they
got two-thirds of the money for staff. And the side that had a
minority--whether it was a three-vote minority, a six-vote minority, a
10-vote minority, which we were in sometimes--we were in an 18-vote
minority sometimes--the minority got one-third, the majority got two-
thirds.
This year we are one vote ahead. It seems to me the rule has been
that the party that is in the majority gets two-thirds, the other one-
third. I don't think the rule said: but only if you are ahead by five
votes, if you have five more Senators. What if it were two? Would that
be enough to apply the rule? It has been six, it has been eight. But
now it is one, but one doesn't work? It's not a majority?
Because when we were even--remember, we were even at one time. We
thought we should be running the Senate because the Vice President gave
us an extra vote. It didn't work out that way. We had to concede. And
we split the money 50-50, or at least we said we will not force a
reduction.
To me, the dollars involved in that are important, but clearly not as
important as doing the public's business. They are not as important as
recognizing they lost and we won, and we ought to be in control. We
ought to be chairmen. Clearly, our leader is the majority leader. He is
not the ``maybe majority leader''. If you call a meeting to have a
serious hearing tomorrow or the next day, whoever the Republican on
that committee who has been designated by the Republicans as chairman,
is chairman.
Why we sit here and let the appropriations for all of our Government
languish while we argue this issue is beyond this Senator. I truly
believe the Democrats are not going to win by this
[[Page S263]]
tactic. I urge them to get this resolved. The American people do not
want them delaying this. They want us getting on with work together.
They don't want us bickering. But how can you not have an argument when
the facts are what I have just said? Apparently, unless they get the
same amount of money as we had agreed upon when we were not in the
majority, they believe they are not going to let us run the business of
the Senate.
I think it can be worked out. It should be two-thirds/one-third, just
as it was through all of history, but at least we ought to work it out
some way--60-40? Some way, so we can get on with our work. One hundred
Senators, many new ones, are here ready to get on with their work. How
surprised they must be, the new ones, ready to go to work and here we
are, arguing about who is entitled to the gavel. I don't know if all
those new Senators thought that was what their work was about, but here
we are.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator departs, we have had
the privilege of sitting next to each other for some period of time
right there in the Senate. I, of course, admire him as one of the elder
statesmen and pillars of this institution. I think, if people were
asked what are the hallmarks because of which we have such strong
admiration for the Senator from New Mexico, it would be because of his
ability to reach across the aisle and work as he has always done these
many years in the Senate.
So I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say. It was not
easy for you to say some of the remarks you did. You feel strongly
about it, as do I. Here we are with a new Republican leader and we just
want the work of the institution to go on, on behalf of the people of
this Nation who entrusted to us the awesome power that resides in this
Senate--the institution regarded as perhaps the most powerful
legislative body, not only just here in the United States in comparison
to the legislatures of our States, but, indeed, the world.
I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has
expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 additional minute.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the
parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business was to be
equally divided. The minority party has 41 minutes left. The majority
party's time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. I see. I do not at this time know--I'm not entirely sure
how we say majority or minority here in this situation.
Mr. DOMENICI. That's right.
Mr. WARNER. I do not see where there is someone from the other side
of the aisle seeking recognition, so the Senator from Virginia would
ask for 7 minutes to proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the
time allocation? The Democrats were allotted equal time with the
Republicans. What is the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 40 minutes remaining. The
time for the majority party has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were asking for a few minutes because the Senator
was not here. He was going to use some time.
Mr. WARNER. Then, Mr. President, I will put again before the Chair
the request on behalf of the Senator from Virginia to proceed as in
morning business for, say, 6 minutes?
Mr. REID. I am happy to agree to that. Forty minutes takes us until
12:30, when the time is up.
What I ask is that the time be extended past 12:30 for the Democrats
by the 5 or 6 minutes, if that is what the Senator wants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I am sorry, I simply did not hear.
Mr. REID. I have no objection to that. I only ask the time from 12:30
to whatever time the Senator takes, 7 minutes or whatever it is, be
given to the Democrats so that would be until approximately 12:40.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from
Nevada.
I thought I would bring to this series of comments some experience I
have been privileged to have in this institution. I mark a quarter of a
century of service beginning this week in which I have been privileged
to serve the people of Virginia and the people of the United States in
this venerable institution. I just draw on some of my own experience,
particularly as it relates to the Committee on Armed Services.
Currently, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, my very good
friend, Mr. Levin, remains as chairman of the committee. We are
actively carrying forward the work of the committee irrespective of
some of the difficulties we are facing on the floor as it relates to
other matters. But that is the way Chairman Levin and I have operated
through our years since we came together. Both of us mark a quarter of
a century of service beginning this week in the Senate.
I am very respectful of the distinguished majority leader, Senator
Frist, Senator Daschle, and the respective whips in their efforts to
try to negotiate a resolution to this unique situation--unique in some
respects but in other respects I feel that elections are held in
America and the results are announced to the people of our Nation. I
know of no contest going on with regard to any of the 100 Senate seats,
and most particularly those of the class who were just elected, or
reelected in my case to a fifth term in the Senate. I don't know of any
contest anywhere in the States in this Nation but such contest as this
which most unfortunately remains here in this Chamber.
But this is the way that I have conducted myself and as others have
conducted themselves in these 25 years that I have been here as it
relates to the Committee on Armed Services.
I suppose if I were to say what some of the great lessons are that I
have had as a Senator it would have been my service with men--and in
some instances several women but most particularly the men--on the
Armed Services Committee. I say women because when I was Secretary of
the Navy I appeared before Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, an absolutely
brilliant Senator and stalwart member of the Armed Services Committee.
But Senator Stennis was chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, who followed in the tradition of Richard Russell. I really
stood in awe to testify before Russell when I was Secretary of the Navy
at the time I knew him in that period of time. When I joined the
committee, Senator Stennis really took me under his wing and just sort
of treated me almost like an adopted younger brother. It was a
marvelous experience. He gave me a variety of special assignments when
I first came to the Senate to serve him and the other members of the
committee.
Another Senator on the committee at that time was Scoop Jackson of
the State of Washington. For those few of us here in the Chamber who
had the opportunity to serve with him, he touched our lives very
deeply.
These men not only carefully operated under the rules of the Senate,
but there was so much tradition and unwritten sort of rules of the
Senate that they conveyed to us.
Following Stennis, Senators Gore and John Tower; and then my longtime
valued friend, Senator Nunn--I served as ranking on the committee under
Senator Nunn as I do now under Carl Levin.
But I thought I would go back and just describe how we handled the
transition when Senator Jeffords made his decision, which decision was
an incalculable blow to the Republicans who served with him in this
institution because there had never really been a precedent at any time
when the change of power in the Senate shifted other than by elections.
It was unprecedented.
But on May 24, the declaration of independence statement was made by
Senator Jeffords. And from May 26 to June 3, the Senate was in recess.
On June 5, 2001, Senator John Warner, acting as chairman, presided over
an Armed Services Committee nominating hearing. At the close of the
business on June 5, the Democrats became the majority party in the
Senate when Senator Jeffords switched formally his
[[Page S264]]
party affiliation from Republican to Independent. On June 6, Senator
Carl Levin was designated chairman of the Committee of Armed Services.
On June 7, Senator Levin, as chairman, presided over the Armed Services
Committee nominating hearing and other business of the committee.
There it is. I had waited some 20 years through this procession of
seniority. Then we have an election process in our conference. I became
chairman and served in that 2-year period--some 18 months, whatever it
worked out to be--after 20-some-odd years of training and preparation
to take on that awesome responsibility. In less than 24 hours, I stood
up as I was trained as a military man and handed the gavel to Senator
Levin, and the business of the committee went on.
That is sort of the transition, and that is the sort of spirit we
have in that great committee on which I serve. We try to keep to a very
minimum questions of partisanship because we have the responsibility
for the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, the security
policies in terms of oversight of this Nation. We take that
responsibility very seriously. As such, I am proud to say that I think
Senator Levin and I have continued the traditions of those men who we
deem great, great chairmen of this committee.
I hope this casts some light on the negotiations that are being
undertaken on our behalf by the leadership because I certainly value
it. We took our blow when Senator Jeffords made his switch. But I think
to the man and to the woman on this side of the aisle we did it, and we
did it swiftly and in recognizing that the leadership in this Nation
should never be in doubt.
If I could just reminisce on one story that I remember so well. I was
working on the staff of the Vice President of the United States,
Richard Nixon. I was traveling with him in 1960--as we call it, an
``advance man.'' I had the last assignment of taking him to California
that night when the nationwide election was held. The following morning
I made the arrangements to convey the Vice President back to
Washington. The election was still not fully decided in the minds of a
number of people, primarily because of the celebrated block of votes in
Chicago allegedly under the control of the then-mayor, the father of
the current mayor, Richard Daley. But, in any event, we proceeded to
the airport. I put the Vice President's plane on the end of the runway
because we wanted to try to remove ourselves as much as possible from
the clamor of the press watching the final results of that election
unfold.
There was a mechanic who had come out to make certain the plane was
operative before we departed. We loaded all the staff. I then escorted
the Vice President and Mrs. Nixon out, and one or two of his senior
associates. The mechanic had a small radio that was blaring about these
10,000 votes. I watched the Vice President at that time instruct one of
his aides to call in and say that he would not contest those votes
because at no time did he feel there should ever be a doubt in the
minds of the American people or in the minds of the world of the
ability of the elections of this country to decide the change of power.
Right there at the end of that airstrip when that decision was made,
it was conveyed back to President Eisenhower, and that was it. That
night, we came back to Washington and he formally conceded that
election. I think that is an interesting precedent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the minority has until 12:40; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
____________________